I started off in computer programming before having a major career switch. When all of the computer jobs started going overseas years back I seen the light at the end of that tunnel. While I was making more money as a programmer (although not that much more, honestly), service jobs can't be shipped to China or India. I do miss that work a little, though I may not have a job now had I stayed. That job market is sketchy to say the least. The more complicated vehicles get the more security this profession has.

I used to be able to type 130wpm. I am down to around 60 now. I spend more time thinking than typing. It doesn't flow like it used to.

There is a bit of confusion early in this thread (tech69 and painted jester) regarding my waterborne wax and grease remover. I am still using all solvent based material, including basecoat. I have never shot waterborne base in my life. The waterborne I am referring to is the wax and grease remover, in comparison to solvent based wax and grease which I have used on every job up until this one.

Hope you all have a good attention span! I will have the test done in a week or so. I am slowing down a bit as I get older.

I knew you were using all solvent based materials< Ive never shot water born either LOL And probably never will!!! If I was much younger I would want to learn!!! But with the end of the world coming in Dec. $*^#!@%^&* I Don't Have To!! LOL

Doing a bit of fall cleaning and came across my test panel that I shot. I had forgotten to update you all on the results.

I shot the test panel using the same conditions as the doors. It was 4 degrees cooler and 20% less humidity, but that was about as close to the same conditions as I was going to get.

The paint stuck perfectly fine to the test panel. I had let it cure overnight, and starting with painter's tape all the way to the good "200mph" duck tape and it stuck fine, even on the corners. I had left a piece of duck tape on it for the past couple weeks (forgotten about it), just pulled it off and it was fine.

That shoots down the waterborne not drying theory, at least to me. I have decided to start keeping records of the conditions and details when I paint just in case something like this happens again. All things considered I got lucky this time (plenty of material left and plenty of time left to reshoot), but I know that won't always happen.

I have to say it does NOT shoot down the waterborne wax and grease remover not being out of the film before paint. 20% more humitity could be a HUGE factor in this. Think about it, the water in the W&G needs to evaporate, where is it going to evaporate too? Into the air is where, if that air already has a ton of moisture in it, the bus is full, it can't get on!

There is always the "perfect storm" where many very small things add up, without the extra humidity, everything else the same, no problem. With the same humidity and leaving the surface 5 more minutes to flash off, no problem. See what I mean, without the perfect storm of both these conditions, no problem.

I am not saying for sure of course, I don't know, but it can't be discounted. This was a very odd failure so the real answer is out there somewhere in the cosmos.

Well Brad paint can be a tricky mistress and you have had a bunch of "could it be this" information. The good thing is that the experience you've just gone through makes you a better, more informed painter. By posting it on this forum you've given us all more knowledge and for that I thank you.

I have to say it does NOT shoot down the waterborne wax and grease remover not being out of the film before paint. 20% more humitity could be a HUGE factor in this. Think about it, the water in the W&G needs to evaporate, where is it going to evaporate too? Into the air is where, if that air already has a ton of moisture in it, the bus is full, it can't get on!

There is always the "perfect storm" where many very small things add up, without the extra humidity, everything else the same, no problem. With the same humidity and leaving the surface 5 more minutes to flash off, no problem. See what I mean, without the perfect storm of both these conditions, no problem.

I am not saying for sure of course, I don't know, but it can't be discounted. This was a very odd failure so the real answer is out there somewhere in the cosmos.

Brian

Your right Brian, the perfect storm needs to be recreated, the questions I would have just to start are, How wet did the product go on the test panel, How many coats of base, Was the test panel shot up right (like a door on a truck) or laying flat on the table. I could go on.

The analogy of "the perfect storm" is 100% correct because if everything was the same, the same results will happen, if the results change the perfect storm was not recreated.

While that is true, would I go from peeling off in layers to good adhesion with a 20% drop? If it was wet enough to not get adhesion on basically a 12"x12" square, I would think I would still get some adhesion problems if it did dry faster, even if not as severe.

I recreated to the best of my knowledge. Same number of coats, through pearl and all, and pearl measured out the same. I wonder if the problem isn't something I am consciously aware of, such as there being sanding dust left there, silicone from the door handles, something to that effect as mentioned earlier in this thread.

All Brian and I are saying is that what happened on the test panel is different due to one of the many variables you can experience when painting. One thing that I think you can rule out is silicone being the problem. If silicone was that concentrated that it wouldn't allow paint to stick, you would have had more fish eyes in the surrounding area than you could imagine. Another being sanding dust...can't see that being the issue for many reasons.

I've been painting for many years (over 30 years) and trying to solve problems for techs in body shops for nearly as long. Every once in a while you do run into a situation that defies all reasonable explanation for the information you are given. There is an explanation out there, what it is I can't give you a 100%, yep this is it answer. I ran into a situation similar to yours about 18 years ago, beat our heads into the wall for weeks, couldn't figure it out. A few weeks go by and an apprentice took me aside and asked if opening and closing the bay door while somebody was painting could be a problem, (Cold Winter day, no air make up unit to control booth temperature). We recreated this situation with a 2 minute door open. Temperature inside the booth dropped by 45 degrees and took over 20 minutes to recover. This shocked the paint but it seemed to adhere...for about 10 days. We pressure washed the test panel and the paint blew off. Will this happen every time? I don't know, as in your case, to many variables. If everything was exact in this trade, we wouldn't need forums like this, every paint job would be perfect and all would be well. It's these things that make it all interesting and enhance the learning experience.

Brad, read this comment of Ray's again, THIS is all you need to understand. THIS is it in a nutshell, and brilliantly explained, the results changed so you didn't do it the same, end of story.

Brian

Isn't that exactly what I said? The cause is something that I did not recreate?

While I don't necessarily believe in the sanding dust or silicone either, it is likely as you say: a combination of things making the perfect storm. If the waterborne dry time was the single cause, I think I would have seen something with this test. The "perfect storm" is hard to prevent, but a single fix like giving the waterborne and extra 15 minutes is quite easy.

While that is true, would I go from peeling off in layers to good adhesion with a 20% drop? If it was wet enough to not get adhesion on basically a 12"x12" square, I would think I would still get some adhesion problems if it did dry faster, even if not as severe.

I recreated to the best of my knowledge. Same number of coats, through pearl and all, and pearl measured out the same. I wonder if the problem isn't something I am consciously aware of, such as there being sanding dust left there, silicone from the door handles, something to that effect as mentioned earlier in this thread.

I dont know anything about waterborn W&G I've never used it and dont ever plan on it...what I do know is is I've painted when its raining out hundreds of times 100% humidity and Ieven used to wet down the floor for years(now days I'll wash it down and wiat for it to dry) and never had anything like that happen..To this day I prefer painting when its raining out or first thing in the morning when the dew is covering the ground because theres no bugs or dirt in the air..I seem to get my best work then...Maybe it could be as simple as there was a ton of wax on there and it needed to be dewaxed several times to get it all off...who knows???? But then again Ray made a good point ,if it was a wax problem you would have known as soon as the base hit the panel it'll fisheye like crazy...we may never know I'm certainly stumped...

Brad, it looks like you've had a mishap even these experts can't solve. Sarcastic congratulations on that one. These guys have taught me more in the few years I've been on here than I learned in 15 years of painting in my own shop with just the paint supplier and outdated body and paint books for knowledge.

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Hot Rod Forum : Hotrodders Bulletin Board forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name (usually not your first and last name), your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:

Password

Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:

Confirm Password:

Email Address

Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:

Insurance

Please select your insurance company (Optional)

Log-in

User Name

Remember Me?

Password

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.